[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have “flat feet”. I am in the military.[/quote]
So I guess that makes you tough, then? 
Seriously, I can’t run for shit. Sorry.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have “flat feet”. I am in the military.[/quote]
Your feet are just being squashed by all that weight you are carrying around.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I have “flat feet”. I am in the military.
Your feet are just being squashed by all that weight you are carrying around.
[/quote]
Hell, you might be right.
“defeated” hell no.
Im not about to go die or see friends die for idiots who miraculouly find themselves incharge of the most powerful military in the world, and now go around looking for excuses to use it. Hell we’re set up now on a path to f*ckdom, and most people are still voting based on who doesn’t like Gay’s, and think that Bush is tough on terrosism. Really?
Well what about North Korea, China, Russia? ( Iran, if they had a better gov’t could be allowed to develop nuclear power only)
Bush is an idiot plain and simple. If he was more agressive we’d be at war with the world, he’s like a child throwing tantrums, its just plain annoying.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, no, not me Loth, I realize your flat feet or was it asthma keeps you from partaking in the glorious battle for freedom (cue Loth screaming FREEDOM William Wallace style from Braveheart) and against Dr. Evil that is taking place.
LOL You kill me, dude. Flat feet, BTW. Just imagine, if I could have gone to West Point, you would have had to salute ME, of all people. Maybe my genetics did you a favor, elk.
And I like the Braveheart reference… seeing as how I’m Scottish in heritage. (Now where did I put that blue face paint?)
PS Good timing, elk. You’re like Old Faithful over in Yellowstone Park. :)[/quote]
Wow, if I was a rich man nananananana! You make allowances for yourself with a lot of IFs. I would be saluting you huh? Well, with your burgeoning bag of ifs that keep you from your brave actions, I’m not worried about anything like that ever happening.
Interesting link regarding the fallacies for invading Iraq.
[quote]kakusha wrote:
“defeated” hell no…[SNIP]… Hell we’re set up now on a path to f*ckdom…[/quote]
A “path to fuckdom” doesn’t sound very sunshiny to me, man. Still looking for the dog doo?
[quote]Well what about North Korea, China, Russia? ( Iran, if they had a better gov’t could be allowed to develop nuclear power only)
Bush is an idiot plain and simple. If he was more agressive we’d be at war with the world, he’s like a child throwing tantrums, its just plain annoying.[/quote]
Hmmm… all in good time, my friend. You can’t just wave a magic wand and have the world be free. Give us time. While you complain about Bush being an idiot, another democratic republic is born in the Middle East.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Well, with your burgeoning bag of ifs that keep you from your brave actions, I’m not worried about anything like that ever happening.[/quote]
You’re right not to worry. I was married to the daughter of Satan for five years… there’s nothing that can top that shit. Make Uncle Sam pay my child support, and stop caring if I can run for long distances, and I’ll send you a postcard from Baghdad, you silly man you.
[quote]Astaroth wrote:
A free Iraq with a strong military, the latest weapons, and a desire of the people to rid the region of terrorism has Iran, Syria, and others shaking in their boots. The U.S. wouldn’t have to do anything further to take care of that part of the world. Iraq would be the “beacon of freedom” as Bush claims and he is right.[/quote]
That’d be very nice. But it’s not how things appear to be working out.
Their consitutional talks are at a dead end, with Sunnis refusing to ratify the current proposal. Said proposal being heavily based on Islamic law, with provision such as no law can ever be passed that contradicts the Quran, etc.
That’s not the path to a free Iraq.
In fact, it would no be surprising to eventually see Iraq fall into a civil war as Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and all other affilitions try to get as much of the cake as possible.
Iraq is an “artificial” nation, created by the British Empire from the remnants of the fallen Ottoman empire. It was held together mostly because all of its rulers ruled it with an iron fist, right down to Saddam.
Give these people “freedom” and it’s quite possible for the country to fly apart. It’s happened before.
It seems to me to be naive in the extreme to think that by simply removing a dictator, the country would simply become “a shining beacon of freedom.” It shows very little understanding of local culture and history.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Well, with your burgeoning bag of ifs that keep you from your brave actions, I’m not worried about anything like that ever happening.
You’re right not to worry. I was married to the daughter of Satan for five years… there’s nothing that can top that shit. Make Uncle Sam pay my child support, and stop caring if I can run for long distances, and I’ll send you a postcard from Baghdad, you silly man you. :)[/quote]
You truly are the prince of excuses. How convenient. “Hey, I was married to satan and that was hell enough”.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Give us time. While you complain about Bush being an idiot, another democratic republic is born in the Middle East.[/quote]
Haaaaaaa! I almost fell off my chair laughing, please dont do this anymore you’re gonna give me a laughter induced stroke.
The PATH to f*ckdom means were on it , not there yet, we need less idiots. Keep “snipping”; the dog doo is in the white house.
[quote]pookie wrote:
It seems to me to be naive in the extreme to think that by simply removing a dictator, the country would simply become “a shining beacon of freedom.” It shows very little understanding of local culture and history.[/quote]
More importantly, it shows the arrogance involved in that line of thinking and the inability to even consider that the entire world does not think like us. We got rid of Saddam. Great. Does anyone truly believe that he was the only thing standing in the way of “peace” in that country? If anything, he may very well have been one factor that kept it from imploding in spite of being what we would consider a “madman”.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Give us time. While you complain about Bush being an idiot, another democratic republic is born in the Middle East.[/quote]
Born? No. Controlled, given deadlines to meet in order to satisfy public interest, and poorly structured? Yes. There isn’t anything over there being “born” when you can’t even create (settle on) a “constitution” without it being heavily governed by only one strict religion. They are already downplaying what we should expect from that “democracy”. Women will have less rights under this constitution than when Saddam was in control? This birth might need to be aborted and tried again.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More importantly, it shows the arrogance involved in that line of thinking and the inability to even consider that the entire world does not think like us. We got rid of Saddam. Great. Does anyone truly believe that he was the only thing standing in the way of “peace” in that country? If anything, he may very well have been one factor that kept it from imploding in spite of being what we would consider a “madman”.[/quote]
We can look at recent events in Soviet Union, Czecholosvakia and Yugoslavia. All those countries broke down into “component parts” once the powers that held them together was removed or weakened. Most had flare ups of violence. (Kosovo, Tchetnia, etc.)
Hopefully, the U.S. presence in Iraq will avert that possibility, but to claim that it can’t happen and pretend that Iraqis are now happy and “free” is simply ridiculous. It’s very nice to let them write their own constitution, but it seems that what they want is another Islamic Theocracy. Saddam’s Iraq was much more secular than Iran. It appears the new Iraq might not be.
I can’t wait to see how they’ll spin that one. “A Shining Bastion of Islamic Fundamentalism” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue.
There were lots of nay-sayers around a few years ago – said a country without a king would go tits up, the common people can’t really run a country (they’re too dumb). The country became the greatest country in world history, US.
We are trying to break a cycle in Iraq. There are people there who have no concept of liberty; they live like animals and simply blow-up anything they don’t understand, including their own liberators. President Bush decided that this ends now. He is making a valiant effort to change an ancient and now-erroneous world-view. But, DO IT, George and quit kicking the curb already!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There were lots of nay-sayers around a few years ago – said a country without a king would go tits up, the common people can’t really run a country (they’re too dumb). The country became the greatest country in world history, US.
[/quote]
Yeah, but why ignore that whole “Shias & Sunnies” issue over there? They have fighting and hatred in that part of the world that goes back to Abraham. Getting rid of Saddam isn’t going to erase all of that. In America, we were all pretty much on the same page for the most part. While there were several negatives from women’s rights to slavery, what erased all of that in the end was a fight for freedom. This is not a culture that even mirrors what we began with. They are putting some things into their own constitution that restrict some aspects of their culture even more than when Saddam was in charge. If that doesn’t speak very loudly to those of you who seem to only be able to think in term of “American Eyes”, I don’t know what will.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
It seems to me to be naive in the extreme to think that by simply removing a dictator, the country would simply become “a shining beacon of freedom.” It shows very little understanding of local culture and history.
More importantly, it shows the arrogance involved in that line of thinking and the inability to even consider that the entire world does not think like us. We got rid of Saddam. Great. Does anyone truly believe that he was the only thing standing in the way of “peace” in that country? If anything, he may very well have been one factor that kept it from imploding in spite of being what we would consider a “madman”.[/quote]
In spite of? I don?t know. Maybe it took a psychopath to hold that country together.
[quote]orion wrote:
In spite of? I don?t know. Maybe it took a psychopath to hold that country together. [/quote]
I think anyone can hold power at the barrel of a gun. The more difficult part is what is happening currently. Several factions meeting and hashing out their differences. It’s democracy at it’s finest, brought to you by George W. Bush!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
In spite of? I don?t know. Maybe it took a psychopath to hold that country together.
I think anyone can hold power at the barrel of a gun. The more difficult part is what is happening currently. Several factions meeting and hashing out their differences. It’s democracy at it’s finest, brought to you by George W. Bush![/quote]
Anyone could hold power that way, but most wouldn?t if it involved gasing whole villages. I think it takes a certain kind of personality to do that.
[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
In spite of? I don?t know. Maybe it took a psychopath to hold that country together.
I think anyone can hold power at the barrel of a gun. The more difficult part is what is happening currently. Several factions meeting and hashing out their differences. It’s democracy at it’s finest, brought to you by George W. Bush!
Anyone could hold power that way, but most wouldn?t if it involved gasing whole villages. I think it takes a certain kind of personality to do that.[/quote]
I agree, a very sick one!
If you take an objectivist approach, some on here love Ayn Rand . . . Bush should have turned Iran and a few other countries into parking lots. What does the hate of a French lady do to me? Nothing. Since we are compared to Rome, we should act like Rome. Instead we are playing the sensitive side while fighting a war.